By Dan Kennedy • The press, politics, technology, culture and other passions

Tag Archives: casino

Longtime readers know that I don’t disclose who I’m voting for. Yes, I’m a liberal, and if you tried to guess I’m sure you’d be right most of the time. But I firmly believe that journalists — even opinion journalists — should keep their choices to themselves. It’s not a matter of objectivity; it’s a matter of independence.

But I feel no such compunction about ballot questions. After all, I analyze and express my opinion about issues. It seems silly to refuse to say how I’m going to vote on Question 3 after writing repeatedly that I’m staunchly opposed to casino gambling.

And yes, I will start with Question 3, which I think is by far the most important matter on the ballot. I have been fighting against casino gambling since 2007, when the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe tried to build a casino in Middleborough, the town where I grew up. The bid eventually fell apart amid a miasma of anger and corruption (what a surprise, eh?).

But Gov. Deval Patrick and the state legislature, to their everlasting discredit, kept the issue alive with a 2011 law allowing for the opening of three casinos and one slots parlor. It is an outrage. A “yes” vote on Question 3, which you can be sure I’ll be casting tomorrow, would once again outlaw casino gambling in Massachusetts.

Casino gambling has been tied to an ocean full of social and economic ills — increased rates of crime, divorce, even suicide, and hollowed-own business districts as the spending shifts to the local casino. The stench of corruption is inevitable. Look at Everett, the locus of federal indictments even before one shovelful of dirt has been turned over.

I am disappointed that both major-party gubernatorial candidates, Republican Charlie Baker and Democrat Martha Coakley, say they would be open to finding a way to build a casino in Springfield even if Question 3 is approved. One aspect they may not understand is this: If casino gambling is legal, then tribal casinos become inevitable. You can’t let Springfield have a casino without opening the door to one, two or more tribal casinos as well. (And never mind the condescending attitude Baker and Coakley have about Springfield’s economic prospects.)

My fear is that Question 3 will lose decisively, thus creating the impression that Massachusetts residents are pro-casino. Polls consistently show that people are in favor of casinos in the abstract and against them when someone proposes to build one in their neighborhood. If Question 3 does go down, we can still fight them one at a time. But a “yes” vote would put the matter to rest once and for all.

Question 1. I’m voting “no.” A “yes” vote would repeal a law that indexes the gasoline tax to the rate of inflation. Our gas taxes are still on the low side, as anyone who drives through Connecticut can attest. Our transportation system needs a huge amount of investment whether you’re talking about rail, subways or highways and bridges.

Question 2. A “yes” vote would expand the bottle-deposit law, and I’m all for it.

Question 4. This is a perfect example of why some issues should not be decided by referendum. Passage of Question 4 would make medical leave mandatory at most private companies in Massachusetts. It’s an enormously complex issue. I’m voting “yes” because I’m concerned about the message that it would send if it goes down to defeat.

But an even bigger surprise is the paper’s strong editorial against casinos. This is great news for those of us of us who oppose casinos on the grounds that they will breed crime, social dysfunction and traffic nightmares. In a delicious reference to the indictments that have already been handed down over the Everett project, the editorial calls casino deals “flypaper for low-lifes.”

Sadly, both candidates for governor, Martha Coakley and Charlie Baker, have left the door open to moving ahead with a casino in Springfield even if Question 3 passes. That’s a fight for another day. First casinos have to be defeated. Please vote “yes” on 3.

Like this:

The chaos that has broken out over the split between Suffolk Downs and Caesars Entertainment is good news for casino opponents. At the very least, it increases the likelihood that East Boston residents will vote no on Nov. 5. At most, we may be able to look forward to delays and lawsuits for years to come.

I was particularly struck by the accusation — reported by Mark Arsenault in The Boston Globe — that Caesars separated one wealthy gambler from his money by keeping him liquored up and plying him with painkillers. I know nothing about the details of that accusation. But it actually fits well with the business model for casinos.

I’ve flagged this before, and it’s worth flagging again: according to Michael Jonas of CommonWealth Magazine, casinos could not survive if it weren’t for the problem gamblers who provide a disproportionate share of the revenues. Jonas explains it this way:

Just how much of the revenue casinos bring in is from the losses of those with gambling problems? One of the most thorough studies of this issue was done in 2004 in Ontario, where researchers had a sample of residents maintain diaries logging their gambling expenditures. The study, prepared for the government-supported Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre, estimated that 35 percent of Ontario casino revenues were derived from moderate to severe problem gamblers. Such gamblers accounted for 30 percent of revenue from casino table games and a whopping 62 percent of revenue from slot machines.

I remain appalled that Gov. Deval Patrick and the Legislature legalized casinos and slots, which are associated with higher rates of crime, divorce and suicide. But I’m optimistic that these social parasites can be stopped one at a time.

EAST BOSTON, Mass. — Oct. 19, 2013 — For more than a year, No Eastie Casino has pushed the City of Boston and Suffolk Downs to share more information about Suffolk Downs’ proposed Caesars Entertainment Resort. After ignoring repeated calls for greater transparency and concerns about Caesars’ solvency raised by East Boston residents, on Friday Suffolk Downs dropped the operations partner it chose in 2011 to run a casino in East Boston, Caesars Entertainment, only after state investigators informed them that Suffolk Downs likely would not pass the background check if Caesars stayed on. The Boston Globe reported that a number of concerns were brought to Suffolk Downs’ attention, including Caesars’ alleged business ties to organized crime.

But East Boston casino opponents say the stunning news late Friday demonstrates that residents cannot trust Suffolk Downs when it comes to whom they choose to bring into the neighborhood, said No Eastie Casino co-chair Celeste Myers.

“As recently as two months ago, Suffolk Downs owner Joe O’Donnell stated that Caesars was ‘as professional as they come,'” Myers said, pointing out Suffolk Downs’ frequent assertion that it shares Caesars’ values. “Clearly, they did not do due diligence in vetting Caesars — a company with which they have had a relationship since 2011 — and only ended the relationship when forced to do so.”

She added that Suffolk Downs has now picked two corporations, Caesars and Vornado Realty Trust, that have been unable or unwilling to pass background checks. In March, Vornado put its 19 percent stake in the casino plan into a blind trust after the majority of its executive team refused the state’s mandatory background checks. To our knowledge, Vornado has not divested completely from the casino partnership and voters remain in the dark about who will pick up its nearly one-fifth share in the project.

Caesars’ sudden departure also raises serious questions about the value of the City’s and Suffolk Downs’ host community agreement and shows that the promises in the mitigation agreement were made to be broken. Many key elements of the mitigation agreement-including key components of the jobs and small business plans-were tied to Caesars’ employee practices and Total Rewards programs. (Download our 16-page mitigation analysis here.)

No Eastie Casino leaders on Saturday formally called on Suffolk Downs to withdraw its casino application, in light of the information that emerged late Friday, and to share full details about their casino plans — including what they knew about Caesars and when they knew it — with the community at large.

“Now, more than ever, our neighbors and voters are seeing the glaring problems in the Suffolk Downs casino plans and the flaws in transparency that have plagued this fight from the start,” Myers said. “We hope Suffolk Downs and the City of Boston do the right thing and withdraw their support of this project. Until they do, our campaign will continue to reach out to and educate voters until we are victorious on Nov. 5.”

How sleazy do you have to be before you’re found to lack the morals necessary to operate a slots parlor? Very sleazy indeed. Mark Arsenault of The Boston Globe reports that former Plainridge Racecourse president Gary Piontkowski’s habit of stuffing cash into his pockets — $1.4 million in total — was just too much for state regulators to overlook.

Last month, we bestowed a 2013 WGBH News/Portland Phoenix/Providence Phoenix Muzzle Award upon the racetrack for its unsuccessful attempt to abuse the libel laws in order to silence a local blogger who opposed a slots license for the Plainville facility.

Like this:

I was hoping this would go away so quickly that I wouldn’t have to write about it. But today Ethan Forman of The Salem News reports that local business leaders think a 24-hour, seven-day slots parlor in Danvers would just be a wicked awesome way of boosting the North Shore economy.

No surprise that our local Mr. Potters are excited about the idea of turning my town into Pottersville. But it looks as though those of us who oppose casinos and slots are going to have to mobilize — or at least get ready to mobilize.

As those of you who’ve been reading Media Nation for a few years know, I was a staunch opponent of plans to build a casino — at one time billed as the world’s largest — in my hometown of Middleborough. That plan collapsed, fortunately, and I hope this one will, too. At the very least, I find it hard to believe that the proposal would win a townwide referendum, no matter how many goodies the developers promise.

• Last year I gave a Boston Phoenix Muzzle Award to Max Kennedy for refusing to release Robert Kennedy’s papers. Bryan Bender, who did the original reporting on this story, is back, and finds that nothing has changed. What are the Kennedys trying to hide?

• The Springfield Republican has had to muzzle its editorial page as the paper’s owner ponders the possibility of selling the property to build a casino, according to Mark Arsenault. It probably won’t matter much — the Republican was pro-casino even before the possibility of cashing in came along. Still, this is an interesting conflict of interest to say the least.

• Sally Jacobs writes a long feature on U.S. Sen. Scott Brown’s troubled childhood — and finds that his aunt bitterly disputes his account of how she treated him. I hope Brown today is reflecting on the propriety of questioning people’s recollections of their backgrounds. Life is complicated.